What is the difference between the American Revolution and other Revolutions?

Question

such as the(French or Spanish) Revolutions? Why were they different?

Answer 1

It didn't involve the overthrowing of a regime. It was more of a secession than a revolution.

Answer 2

As someone noted it was something of a secession in that the colonies wished to go their own way. It was revolutionary as the concept was almost unheard of in history a colony throwing out the mother country! One defining difference was that the leaders, who would today be considered upper middle class in terms of their attitudes and education, didn't lose control of it . Consider the French Revolution a few years later. While the educated classes began it, the lower classes took it over, with the result of the Reign of Terror. The American Revolution, while there were ample atrocities to go around, never had the level of violent revenge that the French (and many subsequent) uprisings had.

Answer 3

Location, also the fact that the American Revolution was one of the first of its kind. The American Revolution lasted nearly 8 years from 1775 to 1783.

Answer 4

The American revolution resulted in a system that made possible the peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. John Adams and other Federalist party members didn't like Thomas Jefferson. But when Jefferson was voted president, they fell into it and awaited their chance next.

By contrast, the French and Russian revolutions "devoured their children."

Answer 5

Richard L. Bushman, professor of history, Boston University answered it this way (and I tend to agree):

We know that the American Revolution was justified by the Lord because a prophet saw that period of history and said, “the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.” The colonists “were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.” (1 Ne. 13:18, 19.) Does that mean we are justified today in rebelling when we believe our rights are set upon by government?

The problem is not new. The English nation in the eighteenth century was tortured by the same question. In 1688 in what was called the Glorious Revolution, they had deposed their king, James II, and installed a new monarch, William III, who reigned with his wife, Mary. This joint monarch was chosen by the representatives of the people assembled in Parliament. Did that mean Englishmen could repudiate the successors to William and Mary whenever they chose?

The Americans, of course, believed they had a right to revolt and acted on that right in 1776; but they were wise enough to understand that they must build a stable government, and that the rights of the people would not be secure if the government was perpetually shaken by rebellion. (Thomas Jefferson’s famous comment about a little revolution being good for the body politic was not his mature judgment and certainly not the policy he advocated himself when he became convinced in the 1790s that the government of the United States was on the wrong course.)

The question of when revolt is justified was dealt with in our most revolutionary document, the Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson. The first part of the document is the portion we are most familiar with. It declares that governments are constituted for the purpose of protecting human rights and when they fail in that purpose they are to be overthrown and reconstituted. That was the ideological basis of our revolution.

However, Jefferson did not stop there. He went on to deal with the question of how you determine when revolution is justified since obviously you cannot resort to such drastic measures whenever you feel mistreated. As he said, “Prudence indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. …” Men wisely suffer some evils rather than “right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

When should a people go to the extremity of revolt? “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such governments. …” The key word was design. Mere incompetence was not enough. Mistakes had to be tolerated. It was only when the will of the sovereign aimed specifically at destroying all the rights of a people and reducing them to slavery that revolution was justified. “The history of the present King of Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States.” The abuses listed in the declaration were aimed at proving the point. The American revolutionaries themselves would not endorse a revolution arising from ineptitude in government or even suffering among the people. A much deeper and pervasive corruption was necessary—a malevolent and enduring design to destroy the freedom of the people.

After the Revolution, of course, there was no king and that changed the conditions under which revolt was justified. There were some Americans, such as the farmers of western Massachusetts in the 1780s, who because of economic distress rose up to close the courts and prevent debt collection. Samuel Adams, the most radical of the Boston leaders in the Revolutionary movement, adamantly opposed these rebels. The reason he gave was that revolution was unnecessary in a republic because all officials were elected by the people. The people in western Massachusetts were rebelling against themselves, or, what was more likely, a faction of special interests was attempting to advance its own cause under the guise of a revolution of the people.

Samuel Adam’s observations are worth heeding. There are two questions we must ask when someone makes a case for revolution: does he represent a minority point of view disguised as the will of the people; and does he represent the desires of the whole better than the lawfully elected representatives of the people gathered in our legislative bodies?

We must also remember our commitment to the principles of the Constitution and justice. We would never wish to back a movement, even if a majority of the people favored it, that went contrary to the basic principles of our nation and our religion. A recent student of revolutions has observed that very few revolutions have benefited the people in the long run. The American Revolution is possibly the only one that clearly qualifies. We must, therefore, honor our revolutionary forefathers for their achievement without allowing ourselves to be persuaded that revolution is a suitable means for achieving contemporary political purposes.

Answer 6

so a approaches Shevek's answer is the main precise. To difficult on some issues pronounced and get out of your head a number of those undesirable solutions, the main important adjustments are as follows: first of all of the yank revolution replaced into no longer a revolution and can be seen and observed because of the fact the conflict of yankee Independence. the yank colonies have been based by employing lots of people who had left their abode international places to start clean interior the 1st place. So faster or later they desperate that adequate replaced into adequate and that they wouldnt take orders from the King in England anymore. They needed to be self sustaining. The colonists weren't likely into democracy or freedom for all yet quite freedom from England. In France, the region replaced into trully a revolution. for hundreds of years the peasants were residing under the thumb of the the Aristocracy, clergy and of course the King. The third materials, because of the fact the peasants and decrease center type have been customary ( 1st materials is the Aristocracy, 2d is Clergy) desperate that it replaced into time for them to have a say of their own destiny. This replaced into exceptional on the time and between the main important the clarification why it replaced into so significant. Democracy in Europe has its roots of their debate. The motto of the revolution replaced into "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity". people went loopy for a speedy on a similar time as with distinctive people attempting to get a preserve on risk-free practices and democracy on a similar time as the previous the Aristocracy shook in its boots and fled to different countries. it is a generalized answer yet as you will see that they are somewhat distinctive. you will desire to definately see the yank one as an independence stream. The French one as a social revolution that aimed to alter the path of a 1000 years of ecu social device.

Answer 7

The one largest thing that distinguishes the American Revolution from so many others is that it was successful in not only removing the previous government but also in achieving the goals of equality and freedom that, while so often promised, usually fail to materialize.

Answer 8

It wasn't a revolution. It was a war for colonial independence.

A revolution would have overthrown the British government.

Answer 9

maybe we just think we're special...